Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is facing a new ethics and campaign finance complaint alleging misuse of campaign funds, after a watchdog group accused her of spending nearly $19,000 on services that may have been personal rather than political in nature.
The complaint, filed by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) with both the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the House Ethics Committee, centers on payments made in 2025 to Boston-based psychiatrist Dr. Brian W. Boyle. According to the filing, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign reported the expenditures as “leadership training and consulting.”
However, the complaint alleges that those payments may have instead covered psychiatric treatment for Ocasio-Cortez or members of her staff, which—if true—could violate federal campaign finance laws prohibiting personal use of campaign funds.
“There is reason to believe that AOC’s use of campaign funds to pay for a psychiatrist who has no experience in ‘leadership training’ was not for a ‘bona fide campaign or political purpose,’” the complaint states, requesting that federal authorities investigate and “impose appropriate penalties and disciplinary sanctions.”
Under federal law, campaign funds cannot be used for personal expenses unrelated to official duties or campaign activity. Violations can result in fines, repayment obligations, and, in some cases, criminal penalties.
The NLPC’s general counsel, Paul Kamenar, said the payments raise serious compliance concerns. “AOC’s spending almost $19,000 in campaign funds for a shrink appears to violate both the FEC and House Ethics rules prohibiting use of such funds for personal purposes,” Kamenar said.
Campaign finance records show four payments totaling approximately $18,725 were made to Dr. Boyle, who is described as an “interventional psychiatrist” specializing in treatments for depression, PTSD, and anxiety, including ketamine-based therapies.
The complaint argues that Boyle’s professional background does not align with traditional campaign consulting services, raising questions about how the expenditures were categorized and whether they were properly disclosed in federal filings.
It remains unclear what services were provided, who participated in the sessions, or whether the payments were directly tied to campaign-related activities. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign has not publicly responded to requests for comment regarding the allegations.
The case now places the matter in the hands of two oversight bodies. The FEC is responsible for enforcing federal campaign finance laws, while the House Ethics Committee has authority to investigate misconduct by members of Congress and impose disciplinary measures.
The Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC), which can conduct preliminary reviews, may also play a role in determining whether the case should be escalated for further investigation.
This is not the first time Ocasio-Cortez has faced scrutiny over ethics matters. In a prior case, the House Ethics Committee found that she had improperly accepted gifts related to her attendance at the 2021 Met Gala, including apparel and services associated with her widely publicized “Tax the Rich” appearance. She later paid restitution for those violations.
The current complaint adds to ongoing debates in Washington over transparency and accountability in campaign spending, particularly as scrutiny intensifies ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Supporters of stricter enforcement argue that campaign funds must be clearly tied to legitimate political activity to maintain public trust, while critics caution against drawing conclusions before a full investigation is completed.
The allegations also intersect with broader discussions about mental health treatment and workplace support services, though the central legal question in this case remains whether campaign funds were used appropriately under federal law.
For now, the complaint represents an early step in what could become a more extensive review process. Federal authorities have not yet announced whether they will open a formal investigation.
If they do, the case could hinge on whether the services billed as “leadership training and consulting” meet the legal standard for permissible campaign expenditures—or whether they cross the line into prohibited personal use.
Until then, the matter remains unresolved, with potential legal and political implications still unfolding.